City's gun control ordinances struck down by court (Philadelphia, Pittsburgh: law, bars)

[tyovan4]

An Allegheny County judge Tuesday struck down three Pittsburgh gun-control ordinances championed by Mayor Bill Peduto and several City Council members and passed in response to last year’s mass shooting at the Tree of Life synagogue in Squirrel Hill.

In a five-page opinion, Allegheny County Common Pleas Senior Judge Joseph M. James found that state law bars local gun laws. His brief order, filed late Tuesday afternoon, called the city’s ordinances “void and unenforceable.”
...
“The City has expended a large amount of energy attempting to categorize the restricted behavior in such a way that it is not expressly prohibited” by state law, he wrote. “Despite the City’s efforts to avoid the specific preemption set forth in [the law], they are not able to avoid the obvoius intent of the legislature to preempt this entire field.”

https://www.post-gazette.com/news/cr...s/201910290149

Not unexpected at all, but still hugely relieving for those of us who care about this Constitutionally-guaranteed right. Liberty was preserved by this court. Thank God. Hopefully Peduto can turn his attention to infrastructure instead of pretending he's a Governor or a Senator.

[erieguy]

Excellent news.

He’ll keep pretending that, but he’s definitely going to be busy with infrastructure, until the sinkhole is fixed, anyway. Estimated time is 6-8 weeks but I’d certainly wager the over on that.

[svband76]

I don't like guns but knew Peduto's stunt would fail. The guy spends so much time on federal issues, traveling to sister cities and worrying about issues way, way outside his responsibility as mayor. Meanwhile, potholes, bad roads, weeds, garbage, road flooding, clogged sewers and landslides get ignored. Such a waste.

[szug-bot]

Originally Posted by tyovan4

Not unexpected at all, but still hugely relieving for those of us who care about this Constitutionally-guaranteed right. Liberty was preserved by this court. Thank God. Hopefully Peduto can turn his attention to infrastructure instead of pretending he's a Governor or a Senator.

according to the post-gazette article:

The three city ordinances regulate the use of assault weapons in public places in Pittsburgh; prohibit the use of large-capacity magazines in public places; and allow courts to temporarily seize weapons from a person who is exhibiting “red flag” signs of extreme risk to themselves or others.


keep it in perspective. the first two points (above) are not a violation of the second amendment. whether you interpret the constitution strictly or with flexibility, its language leaves a lot of ambiguity. one can argue that the writers (who could not have known about the insanity we witness in the 20th/21st centuries) meant EXACTLY what it says. given that, sounds like the proposed city ordinance does NOT infringe on the right to bear arms...it restricts the right to "USE" arms, and only high-powered weapons at that.


i underlined a portion of your comment i wholeheartedly agree with.

[bradjl2009]

Originally Posted by szug-bot

according to the post-gazette article:

The three city ordinances regulate the use of assault weapons in public places in Pittsburgh; prohibit the use of large-capacity magazines in public places; and allow courts to temporarily seize weapons from a person who is exhibiting “red flag” signs of extreme risk to themselves or others.


keep it in perspective. the first two points (above) are not a violation of the second amendment. whether you interpret the constitution strictly or with flexibility, its language leaves a lot of ambiguity. one can argue that the writers (who could not have known about the insanity we witness in the 20th/21st centuries) meant EXACTLY what it says. given that, sounds like the proposed city ordinance does NOT infringe on the right to bear arms...it restricts the right to "USE" arms, and only high-powered weapons at that.

This is true. There are plenty of publicly owned places as is where you can't bring a weapon, so the first two really aren't that out of the ordinary.

[tyovan4]

Originally Posted by szug-bot

according to the post-gazette article:

The three city ordinances regulate the use of assault weapons in public places in Pittsburgh; prohibit the use of large-capacity magazines in public places; and allow courts to temporarily seize weapons from a person who is exhibiting “red flag” signs of extreme risk to themselves or others.


keep it in perspective. the first two points (above) are not a violation of the second amendment. whether you interpret the constitution strictly or with flexibility, its language leaves a lot of ambiguity. one can argue that the writers (who could not have known about the insanity we witness in the 20th/21st centuries) meant EXACTLY what it says. given that, sounds like the proposed city ordinance does NOT infringe on the right to bear arms...it restricts the right to "USE" arms, and only high-powered weapons at that.


i underlined a portion of your comment i wholeheartedly agree with.

I'm glad that we are able to find at least some level of common ground.

Regarding the right to "use" arms: "According to the amendments, “use” could include loading or attempting to discharge any of the weapons outlined in the proposed bills, as well as a number of other actions. Weapons and accessories listed in the proposals include 37 types of semi-automatic weapons, metal-penetrating ammunition, large capacity magazines, accessories designed to accelerate the rate of fire, and others.
https://www.post-gazette.com/local/city/2019/03/20/Amendments-Pittsburgh-proposed-gun-control-laws-council-o-connor-strassburger-pennsylvania-preemption/stories/201903200118"

Regarding high-power weapons - incorrect.
This would have applied to pistols with standard capacity magazines as well.
This isn't just about a Kalashnikov-style rifle that fires 7.62x.39 rounds - this would have applied to Glock pistols that fire 9mm rounds as well.

[gladhands]

It wasn’t a stunt, and they expected to lose. They want to challenge the constitution in state Supreme Court.

[tyovan4]

Originally Posted by gladhands

It wasn’t a stunt, and they expected to lose. They want to challenge the constitution in state Supreme Court.

LMAO - 300,000 people want to play games with the rights of 12 million.
Trying to fight this in the state Supreme Court would be a state-wide political suicide for the Democratic Party.

"Pennsylvania is Pittsburgh and Philadelphia, with Alabama in between".

[gladhands]

Originally Posted by tyovan4

LMAO - 300,000 people want to play games with the rights of 12 million.
Trying to fight this in the state Supreme Court would be a state-wide political suicide for the Democratic Party.

"Pennsylvania is Pittsburgh and Philadelphia, with Alabama in between".

Pittsburgh would like the right to make gun laws for Pittsburgh. I don’t see how that’s “playing games with the rights of 12 million” and neither do you. You’re just making asinine arguments in support of right wing causes, because that’s the party line.

[bradjl2009]

Originally Posted by tyovan4

LMAO - 300,000 people want to play games with the rights of 12 million.
Trying to fight this in the state Supreme Court would be a state-wide political suicide for the Democratic Party.

"Pennsylvania is Pittsburgh and Philadelphia, with Alabama in between".

I mean there was a lot of fear mongering about gun control just a year ago and Democrats still won in PA easily, so maybe your right wing views aren't as popular as you think.....